- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2009 19:54:56 +0000 (UTC)
- To: URI <uri@w3.org>, "hybi@ietf.org" <hybi@ietf.org>, "uri-review@ietf.org" <uri-review@ietf.org>, "public-i18n-core@w3.org" <public-i18n-core@w3.org>
On Fri, 4 Sep 2009, Julian Reschke wrote: > Ian Hickson wrote: > > On Fri, 14 Aug 2009, Julian Reschke wrote: > > > [...] it now says: > > > > > > > URI scheme syntax. > > > > In ABNF terms using the terminals from the IRI specifications: > > > > [RFC5238] [RFC3987] > > > > > > > > "ws" ":" ihier-part [ "?" iquery ] > > > That is even worse than before, because it now uses productions from the > > > IRI spec defining *URI* syntax. > > > > ws: and wss: URLs are i18n-aware; why would we want to limit them to ASCII? > > Because that's how URI and thus URLs are defined. The ws: and wss: URLs are IRIs; why would we limit them to URIs? I'm not especially interested in ASCII-only URIs at this point. These URLs are only ever going to be used in contexts that accept full IRIs. > > > Furthermore, it still doesn't answer what the semantics of these > > > parts are. What do "ihier-part" and "iquery" represent in a ws URI? > > > > This is defined by the RFC 3987, no? Surely we wouldn't want IRI > > components to have different meanings in different schemes? > > If you can point to a section in RFC 3987 which defines more than the > syntax, and can state that that also applies to "ws", then, great... Isn't what the Web Socket protocol spec now says suitable? > > On Fri, 14 Aug 2009, Julian Reschke wrote: > > > Ian Hickson wrote: > > > > > I assume you are using ABNF syntax (RFC5234) and terminology from the > > > > > URI > > > > > spec, but you really need to state that. > > > > Thanks, fixed. > > > > > > > > (I tried referencing STD68 instead of RFC5234, as we do in HTML5, but > > > > apparently there's no index of STD references for xml2rfc?) > > > Just day "STD68" instead of "RFC5234" in the reference/@anchor element. > > > > I have no <reference> elements, I'm using the <?rfc include=""?> feature and > > reference.RFC.xxxx.xml files. I couldn't find STD reference files. > > Don't use the include feature then. The reference feature allows me to automatically generate the references, which is of more benefit to me than referencing STD numbers instead of RFC numbers. > > I've deferred to RFC3987 to sidestep this issue. > > A URI is not a IRI. > > You can refer to the mapping, but that really needs a few more words > than "See RFC3987.". I don't care about the URI part, only the IRI part. On Fri, 4 Sep 2009, Phillips, Addison wrote: > > I agree with Julian. If you are defining a URI syntax, you can't use IRI > to do so. I've no intention of defining a URI, only an IRI. > Section 2.5 of URI, however, does allow what you mean here, when it > says: > > When a new URI scheme defines a component that represents textual > data consisting of characters from the Universal Character Set [UCS], > the data should first be encoded as octets according to the UTF-8 > character encoding [STD63]; then only those octets that do not > correspond to characters in the unreserved set should be percent- > encoded. For example, the character A would be represented as "A", > the character LATIN CAPITAL LETTER A WITH GRAVE would be represented > as "%C3%80", and the character KATAKANA LETTER A would be represented > as "%E3%82%A2". > > If 'ws:' were defined as an IRI scheme, you could then use RFC 3987 to > define its mapping to a URI. This is what is done in specs like XLink > 1.1. Defining 'ws:' as an IRI scheme would not necessarily be a bad > thing Ok... Let's do that then. I couldn't find any documentation on how to do that. I've just changed the words "URI" to "IRI" in the registration. Is that what needs to happen? > I've found that confusion tends to surround when an IRI is > happily being an IRI and when it needs to be mapped down to a URI. I'm still confused as to why we still have URIs at all. They're such an anachronism. > > > I've deferred to RFC3987 to sidestep this issue. > > > > A URI is not a IRI. > > > > You can refer to the mapping, but that really needs a few more words > > than "See RFC3987.". > > It may not need many more words, but certainly a few more words. Could you elaborate? Which words should I add? -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Friday, 4 September 2009 19:52:07 UTC